Vivian Maier

[dankellys]

Not sure if this has been posted bfore but I saw this today, thought it might be of interest. Basically a woman who lived in Chicago and took thousands of photos of the people and the streets in the 50s, 60s and beyond. But she never showed anybody them.

A few decades later and some bloke buys them at an auction house. He decides to scan them all and process the undeveloped rolls of film, some of the photos are amazing.

News video:

http://www.wttw.com/main.taf?p=42,8,...niVH2LakYxNa7J

The Vivian Maier Blog:

http://vivianmaier.blogspot.com/

I was amazed at the IQ and sharpness of some of the shots, unbelievable for the age of them! An amazing photographer, who never showed anyone a single shot...

[g8ina]

Yes Dan, had seen this some while ago, but always worth another look. Im also gobsmacked by their quality

[dankellys]

Im also gobsmacked by their quality

I really can not believe how good they are. Do you think they are "As Shot" or has this bloke done some digital retouching first?

[Phage]

Those are amazing. Cheers.

[dankellys]

What I dont get is:

a) To have taken that many shots, surely people she knew (friends/family) must have seen her out and about with her camera. How did she manage to go all those years wihout anyone seeing the final product?

b) Why did she keep it all so secret? If I was anywhere near as talented as her I would have had them in everyones faces.

Fascinating story. Looks like they are making a film about it too, which should be interesting.

[Saracen]

What I don't get is:-

....

b) Why did she keep it all so secret? If I was anywhere near as talented as her I would have had them in everyones faces.

....

I can give you one answer to that. It might not be her answer, but it is an answer.

I've been taking pictures for, oh, nearly 50 years. Many an entertaining hour has been spent loading film into cassettes, or from cassettes onto spirals for developing tanks, or inhaling developer and fixer fumes. The vast majority have been seen by me, and me alone. Some, the wife has seen, but she's not really interested in photography. Some more, a few other members of the family have seen. And some more, a very few friends have seen.

But the vast bulk have only ever been seen by me.

Why?

Because I took them for me. I didn't take them so show them off, or to see what other people think. I took them because I wanted them.

Despite having been active online since the days of private bulletin boards, 1200 baud modems and then CIX, I think I've put exactly one image online myself, and that was a snap, not a 'photograph'.

Despite that, even you may have seen some of my photos, because although the vast majority are for me, quite a few have been published in various magazines and newspapers, but those are straight commercial product, usually product shots, and often not attributed.

But my "photography", as opposed to picture taking, is very emphatically a private thing, done for me.

It's not so much that there's any secrecy involved. There isn't. If family and friends want to see them, they're welcome. It's that 'other people' is not what I took them for, so I don't go out of my way to show them around. The web, on the other hand, is another matter. About the only way to be sure your work isn't ripped off by someone, including some large organisations, is to not put it on the web in the first place, so I haven't, and have no plans to change that.

[dankellys]

A very good and fair point, but I still feel it is a little bit of a shame that her work has only been discovered and revealed after her death. It was obviously something she enjoyed and could possibly have even made a living from, but instead saw out her days working as a nanny (which she may also have loved, don't get me wrong!).

EDIT: Would also like to add to that. I also do it because I enjoy it and at the end of the day thats all that really matters. But I still like to get oher peoples opinions on my shots, not for praise but more for the criticism. I am new to photography, and the criticism is what I learn from. I have learnt a hell of a lot from posting my photos on forums such as this one, a lot more than I would have learnt from reading any book or manual.

[Saracen]

A very good and fair point, but I still feel it is a little bit of a shame that her work has only been discovered and revealed after her death. It was obviously something she enjoyed and could possibly have even made a living from, but instead saw out her days working as a nanny (which she may also have loved, don't get me wrong!).

EDIT: Would also like to add to that. I also do it because I enjoy it and at the end of the day thats all that really matters. But I still like to get oher peoples opinions on my shots, not for praise but more for the criticism. I am new to photography, and the criticism is what I learn from. I have learnt a hell of a lot from posting my photos on forums such as this one, a lot more than I would have learnt from reading any book or manual.

I kind-of agree it's a shame .... unless keeping them to herself was a conscious choice, which it may or may not have been.

Also, I should point out I'm not advocating keeping pictures to myself as somehow 'right', or showing them around as in any way wrong.

I'd also agree about learning from constructive criticism .... up to a point.

My view is this. Photography is both art and science. I can (and sometimes do) give constructive criticism on the science, the technique. I'm far more careful about giving criticism on the art. Why? Because I can tell you what I like and don't like, just as I can tell you why I like Renoir and Monet but don't much like
Picasso and generally can't stand Van Gogh.

An "expert" could no doubt spend all day explaining why I'm wrong about VG, and why he's such a grand master, and maybe my dislike is a result of my own ignorance, but the fact remains, I just don't like his work.

So .... if I criticise your work, what makes my opinion right and yours wrong?

That's the caveat I mentioned. Getting an opinion is fair enough, and no bad idea, but be careful what you learn from it, or you risk doing things because they produce a result other people like, but what about you?

I really don't care if other people love or hate my work because I don't do it (with the exceptions mentioned above) for other people. The ONLY opinion that matters is mine, and I "learn" by trial and error, and seeing what does what, has what effect and either succeeds or fails to produce an image I'm happy with.

Oh, and I make no claims to great skill or artistry, either. My work may be considered by other to be superb, or utter garbage. I neither know, nor care, because I do what pleases me.

So be careful that if you invite and accept criticism, you don't let other people's opinions influence, shape or even dictate how YOUR artistic style develops. Learn on the technique, by all means, but unless you want to end up as a mediocre me-too artist doing what the great unwashed feel is "good", work to suit you, not the Borg collective, and especially not self-proclaimed "critics", and certainly not critics that have yet to conclusively demonstrate, by producing their own body of work, that they're not talking out of their nether regions, which a fair few are.


Despite not liking Van Gogh's work, I would not seek to criticise him because to do so implies I could do better, and that's a bit of a stretch, even for me.

I still don't like his stuff, though.

[dankellys]

Also, I should point out I'm not advocating keeping pictures to myself as somehow 'right', or showing them around as in any way wrong.

I know you weren't, I am just merely pointing out that the main reason for me postig images online was to learn, not to show off (I dont have any shots to show off with, just check my flickr! )

So .... if I criticise your work, what makes my opinion right and yours wrong?

That's the caveat I mentioned. Getting an opinion is fair enough, and no bad idea, but be careful what you learn from it, or you risk doing things because they produce a result other people like, but what about you?

I tend to ignore most of the "Its rubbish because..." posts from the "experts", but I have learnt loads of other things such composition, lead-in lines and rule of thirds from helpful critiques on forums too, as well as stuff about shutter times, aperature and ISO settings for different situations (but dont get me wrong, nothing sticks until your out with your camera and give it a go).

Despite not liking Van Gogh's work, I would not seek to criticise him because to do so implies I could do better, and that's a bit of a stretch, even for me.

I still don't like his stuff, though.

Im not a fan either

Anyway, geting someway off topic now.

Vivian...Great photographer in't she?

[Saracen]

....

Vivian...Great photographer in't she?

Well, a bit VanGogh for me. I mean, from what I've seen, she did what she did extremely well. It's just not to my taste.